Resolution 1441

[nihilistic]

Official Resolution 1441 Thread

This thread is devoted to the discussion of Resolution 1441 only. Too many posters have been using resolution 1441 to justify too many different and contracdicting opinions, so I think it in itself deserves a thread. However, I would appreciate it if everybody who replies will agree to read the entire text of the resolution before they respond:

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm


The topic this thread will discuss is, of course, does it justify the use of force in the event that Saddam fails to comply?


The case for military action:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

The case against military action:

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,


EDIT: Since everybody is bringing up resolutions 660 and 678, I have posted below a link to the texts of them both:

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm

 

[nihilistic]

The way I read it, is that Saddam would be "severely punished" in some way other than an invasion. All other interpretations are welcome. However, they MUST be based on the text.

 

[Stile]

I read "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations." How can you take final any other way?

More importantly:

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by nihilistic


The case for military action:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

 

[HighlandWarrior]

"a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;


what else could you do to his country without invading?(seriously asking) we all see the "inspections" are a joke...the inspectors are terrible.

 

[Plastic]

To the French, more inspectors IS "serious consequences"

As many have said, 678 give us all the legality we need.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

I would like to repeat here the explainations of a professor for internaional law of the university of Tuebingen (IIRC), Germany. He is one of the most reknown men in this field in Germany. In a radio show on Wednesday evening he said:

(I am quoteing from memory and paraphrasing as he spoke German, but as I know the law pretty well I am sure I got the basics right)

Resolution 1441 does not allow any nation to attack Iraq. The reasons are as follows:

The Charta of the UN distinctly forbids wars of aggression. Exceptions require the security council to agree. No single state or coaltion of states may attack any other state for whatever reason unless the security coucil has agreed.

........reporter: but Saddam Hussein himself has often viloated human rights and the UN Charta, cannot we remove him? Aren't we actually called on doing so?

We are, but the Charta was designed to keep states from going to war with each other. It was decided that the negative effects of states warring without the entire world agreeing on the goals is far more damaging to all involved than the possible delays that will result from the diplomatics involved. Simply, the security council was designed to deflate the position of individual strong states and make wars the last measure of the community.
If you do get a resolution calling for action, then you can do it.

.........reporter: Now Bush says resolution 1441 threatenes Iraq with 'dire consequences' - isn't that alone enough?

No, decidedly NOT. Because 1441 doesn't say what these consequences will be and who will bring them about. Also, the security council would first have to declare that iraq has violated 1441. This also hasn't happened. Essentially, the US is violating the UN charta.

..........reporter: So the current situation doesn't allow the US to make war against Iraq. What about the agrument that the older resolutions from 1990 allow it?

Well, you have to remember what they called for: removal of Iraqi troops from Kuweit, and destruction of WMD and so on. Nowhere in them does it say 'remove Saddam' or 'install a new government' or even 'occupy Iraqui territory'. The coalition ended the war in 1991 when these goals had been fulfilled. There is no goiung back to that now. After all, the US is not the world police force and the resolutions are not laws! They are made for certain situations, but if their aims are fulfilled they essentially require a re-activation via the security council to allow further action.

end of interview

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

so, you all read the text just fine, but please see that just because someone may have been sentenced to death you as a private citizen may not go and stick a knife in his breast!

 

[Phantom Lord]

1441 was issued by the security council, right? So the security council should be able to interpret its own resolution - which it in fact did by not issuing a second resolution that legitimates an attack.

Conclusion: 1441 is not a legitimation for war and Mr. Bush decided to break international laws by starting an offensive war without UN legitimation.

 

[FredLC]

Lt. "Killer" M., you essencially removed the need of my post, as that is exactly what I was going to say. Great post.

And that professor sounds like a very reasonable man. Really, even if the resolution said that the consequences would be war, only the legitimate international entity would be entitled to declare the resolution broken and that the penalty was in order.

And his point about "sheriff", one-sided "justice" being far more damaging than the delay is exactly what I have been saying in this forum for months now.

Nice to see that there is able people trying to stablish in the international community something that approaches the rule of law. It`s very much needed.

Regards .

 

[Plastic]

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"


How can you deny that this resolution does not allow for force?

And for every German int law expert you produce, I'm sure I can produce an American int law expert saying the opposite.

 

[Phantom Lord]

This thread is about 1441, not 660 or 678. And btw, if those two are such a clear legitimation, why the heck doesn't your president base his actions explicitely on them ...

 

[Plastic]

1441 directly references this part of 678. That quote concerning 678 comes right off 1441.

As to why he doesn't reference them, I don't know, maybe because when Colin Powell asked France if they understood that "serious consequences" means war France lied and said yes?

 

[zippy]

Section 4 of the resolution states that any material breach of the resolution shall be reported back to the council for assessment. As far as I can see, this hasn't happened. This resolution doesn't authorise any action, it just warns that a future resolution may.

 

[Phantom Lord]

What I don't understand is why no anti-war country made up a UK/US-style pro-war resolution and presented it to the security council in order to get it vetoed.

This would have lead to a clear statement.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
so, you all read the text just fine, but please see that just because someone may have been sentenced to death you as a private citizen may not go and stick a knife in his breast!

The US and Britain are authorized member nations and 1441 is a resolution subsequent to 660.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
the resolutions are not laws!

It says all that needs to be said about how much the resolution or the security council should matter to the US. They're no more than suggestion, and ones issued by an organization that has a majority of dictatorships and that has prooved it doesnt care for right and wrong but only for self interests of it's members.

 

[Sh3kel]

Lt. 'Killer' M., UN resoltuions as passed by the General Assembly are meaningless, that much is true, however Sec. Council resolutions have more "teeth" and are to be considered binding.

 

[MrPresident]

What I don't understand is why no anti-war country made up a UK/US-style pro-war resolution and presented it to the security council in order to get it vetoed.

Because they aren't anti-war just anti-war on American terms. If their resolution threatened war then they would have had to have a way of enforcing it which is practically impossible without American support.

Resolutions, laws, lanuage they are all open to interpretation and until a court rules on it I am happy to consider the current action legal and legimate.

 

[Richard III]

Good thread, and as a to the mods, I think this is the sort of thread that should be allowed under any Iraq-thread bans, since it deals in a focused way with a genuine issue of debate.

And I have to agree with Stile in the sense that if you care what the UN says, or care about the fraud that is presently "international law," "Final opportunity" is pretty clear and direct language, and waiting for a few months after 1441 could and should have been enough.

However, that said, I don't give a **** what the UN says, or 1441. I do beleive that the administration has failed to diplomatically justify the war to the world and to build the sort of coalition one would expect them to have. But I'm actually happy that discussion is now free from the UN, so that ridiculous issues like the dictatorship-endorsing UN charter and the stupidity of countries being able to veto each other is foregone.

R.III